ESSAM ZAHOOR BAKSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3591/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Essam Zahoor Bakshi ITO-19(1)(1) Flat No. 5, Akash Aayakar Bhavan, Apats, 4th Sane Gurui Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Marg, Agri Pada, Mumbai-W (167)(1), Mumbai-400 011 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AFYPB0532M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] for the assessment year 2022-23 arising out the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer

2 ITA No. 3591/Mum/2026 Essam Zahoor Bakshi under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"].

3 ITA No. 3591/Mum/2026 Essam Zahoor Bakshi income of Rs.3,19,790/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining total income at Rs.27,86,51,210/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A).The learned CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed on 07.06.2024 against the assessment order dated 18.03.2024 and, therefore, there was a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained the delay by stating that the tax matters of the assessee were looked after by his erstwhile consultant and the said consultant was not aware of the procedures relating to tax litigation matters. 5. The learned CIT(A), however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the learned CIT(A), ignorance of law could not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. He further observed that the explanation furnished was vague and unsupported by verifiable facts. Accordingly, the delay of 49 days was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed in limine without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. 6. During the course of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and upon perusal of the material available on record.

4 ITA No. 3591/Mum/2026 Essam Zahoor Bakshi 7. We have carefully considered the impugned order and the material available on record. The short issue arising for our consideration is whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 49 days and dismissing the appeal in limine. 8. We find that the delay involved in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was only 49 days. The explanation furnished by the assessee was that the delay occurred due to lapse on the part of the tax consultant who was handling the tax matters of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) rejected the explanation primarily on the ground that ignorance of law is not an excuse. 9. In our considered opinion, while exercising powers under section 249(3) of the Act, the appellate authority is required to adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach. The expression "sufficient cause" appearing in the statute should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to gain by filing an appeal belatedly. Refusal to condone a short delay has the effect of depriving a litigant of a valuable statutory right of appeal and results in denial of adjudication on merits. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC), has held that a liberal approach should be adopted in matters relating to condonation of delay and that substantial justice deserves to be preferred over technical considerations. The

5 ITA No. 3591/Mum/2026 Essam Zahoor Bakshi Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 11. In the facts of the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the delay was deliberate, intentional or actuated by any mala fide motive. The delay is relatively short. The assessment order has resulted in substantial additions and consequential tax demand. In such circumstances, dismissal of the appeal at the threshold without adjudication on merits would cause serious prejudice to the assessee. 12. In our view, the learned CIT(A) adopted an unduly technical approach in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal without examining the issues arising from the assessment order. The ends of justice would be adequately served by condoning the delay and restoring the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for disposal on merits. 13. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 14. Since we are restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A), we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

6 ITA No. 3591/Mum/2026 Essam Zahoor Bakshi additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and all contentions of both the parties are kept open.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 17/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai